Funny how you didn't link this part of the study: a correction that wasn't initially disclosed, but was after the fact:

Abstract

Corrigendum to 'Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?' By Neil Z Miller and Gary S Goldman, Human and Experimental Toxicology, published online before print May 4, 2011, doi: 10.1177/0960327111407644, and also in this issue, 30: 1420-1428.
The following declarations should have been made upon publication of this paper. The Authors apologise for this error.

No declaration of Conflict of Interest was made at the time of submission. The Authors would like to make the following declaration at this time:
Neil Z Miller is associated with the ‘Think Twice Global Vaccine Institute’. Gary S Goldman has not been associated with the ‘World Association for Vaccine Education’ (WAVE) for more than four years but was, at the time of publication of the article, still listed as a Director for it on the WAVE website.

Funding

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) donated $2,500 and Michael Belkin made a personal donation of $500 in memory of his daughter Lyla towards the SAGE Choice Open Access fee for this article.

I just want to restate that again:

The guy who said he was an independent researcher actually works for an anti-vaccine advocacy group and didn't disclose the fact that he did so upon your linked publication.

The vaccine that saves almost a quarter of a million lives per year? That one?

What is a higher rate, BTW?

According to the study GlaxoSmithKline did with 71,209 participants, 0.19% of infants that received the vaccine died within 31 days. 0.15% of those that did not receive the vaccine died. Deaths from pneumonia almost doubled (0.052% vs 0.029%).

According to the study GlaxoSmithKline did with 71,209 participants, 0.19% of infants that received the vaccine died within 31 days. 0.15% of those that did not receive the vaccine died. Deaths from pneumonia almost doubled (0.052% vs 0.029%).

Out of 71,209 participants, 135 infants who took the vaccine died. 106 infants who didn't take the vaccine died. There was only a 28 infant difference between deaths of those who took the vaccine, and those who didn't take the vaccine.

And you think that's significant? Infant deaths are certainly unfortunate. But that shows absolutely nothing. Certainly no casual relationship.

Considering the overwhelmingly beneficial effects of vaccines, those numbers support the safety of vaccines.

Out of 71,209 participants, 135 infants who took the vaccine died. 106 infants who didn't take the vaccine died. There was only a 28 infant difference between deaths of those who took the vaccine, and those who didn't take the vaccine.

And you think that's significant? Infant deaths are certainly unfortunate. But that shows absolutely nothing. Certainly no casual relationship.

Considering the overwhelmingly beneficial effects of vaccines, those numbers support the safety of vaccines.

There were 3,999,386 babies born in the US in 2010. The increase from 0.15% to 0.19% would result in 7,599 deaths rather than 5,999, an extra 1600 deaths per year. Before the vaccines were introduced, Rotavirus killed an average of 37 people in the US per year.

It should also be noted that the study only followed children after one dose, Rotarix has 2 doses and RotaTeq has 3.

There were 3,999,386 babies born in the US in 2010. The increase from 0.15% to 0.19% would result in 7,599 deaths rather than 5,999, an extra 1600 deaths per year. Before the vaccines were introduced, Rotavirus killed an average of 37 people in the US per year.

It should also be noted that the study only followed children after one dose, Rotarix has 2 doses and RotaTeq has 3.

You cannot contribute the additional ~1600 deaths to vaccines. Because no casual link exists to do so. And even if you could, those numbers are still insignificant overall.

As for the Rotavirus numbers, that needs a little explanation. Rotavirus only kills a small fraction of those infected with it. But hospitalizations for it in the US were dramatically higher. And US deaths would be much higher were it not for our advanced medical technology. Technology that isn't available in other countries. Countries without vaccines or adequate health care still see way too many Rotavirus deaths.

Quote:

Each year, rotavirus illness is responsible an estimated 453,000 deaths among infants around the world. Before the introduction of a rotavirus vaccine, rotavirus illness caused in an estimated 55,000 to 70,000 hospitalizations and dozens of deaths in the United States each year.